5 total
Offender sentenced to 7 years for home invasion robbery and designated a Long-Term Offender.
The offender was convicted of break and enter and armed robbery after a home invasion targeting a sex worker.
The Crown sought a sentence of 8 years and a Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation.
The court sentenced the offender to 7 years' imprisonment, granting 6.5 years of enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, leaving 6 months to serve.
The court found the offender met the criteria for an LTO designation due to a substantial risk of violent reoffending and a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community, imposing a 7-year long-term supervision order.
The offender was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration due to a high risk of violent recidivism and intractable conduct.
Mario Inacio, 39, was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration following a Crown application under ss. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code.
The court found that Inacio met the criteria for dangerous offender designation, having committed serious personal injury offences including robbery, extortion, unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, threatening death, and robbery with an imitation firearm.
The decision was based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, a high likelihood of future violent reoffending, and the intractability of his conduct, despite some recent positive institutional behaviour.
The court concluded that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public.
Police officer's appeal of dismissal for non-consensual recording and sharing of a sex video dismissed.
The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police officer, appealed a penalty decision ordering his resignation or dismissal after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for recording and sharing a sex video of his former girlfriend without her consent.
The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, the role of his PTSD diagnosis, and the consistency of the penalty.
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the record, and contained no errors in principle.
The penalty of dismissal was confirmed.
Offender designated a dangerous offender but rebuts indeterminate sentence presumption; receives fixed sentence and 10-year LTSO.
The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender following his guilty pleas to aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.
The offender had a lengthy criminal record involving violence and breaches of court orders.
Psychiatric evidence established that the offender suffered from anti-social personality disorder and substance abuse disorder, placing him at a high risk to violently re-offend.
The court found that the offender met the statutory criteria for a dangerous offender designation.
However, based on the offender's positive institutional behaviour and rehabilitative efforts since his arrest, the court found he rebutted the presumption of an indeterminate sentence.
The court imposed a fixed sentence of seven years (reduced to one year after pre-sentence custody credit) followed by a ten-year Long-Term Supervision Order.
Mother held liable for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to protect daughter from incest.
The respondent successfully sued her mother for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to protect her from sexual abuse by her father during her childhood.
The mother appealed, arguing the action was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches due to the 42-year delay in bringing the claim, and that she was powerless to intervene.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability, finding no acquiescence by the respondent and that the mother failed to establish she was unable to protect her daughter.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding damages, reducing the award for lost income from $100,000 to $20,000 due to a lack of evidentiary foundation for the higher amount.
A cross-appeal regarding trial costs was dismissed.